Ayobi v. Adams et al

Filing 35

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 34 Motion to Preserve and Produce Evidence signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/20/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SHAJIA AYOBI,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00693-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE
[ECF No. 34]

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to preserve and produce evidence, filed on

21

September 18, 2018. Plaintiff seeks an order directing the California Department of Corrections and

22

Rehabilitation to produce the video recording from the security cameras of the employee entrance to

23

prove that Dr. Showalter was working on the date in question.

24

Plaintiff’s request to seek a protective order to preserve certain evidence from destruction is

25

not sufficient. Plaintiff’s motion is essentially a request to preserve evidence. Plaintiff is advised that

26

“[f]ederal courts have the implied or inherent power to issue preservation orders as part of their

27

general authority ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition

28

of cases.’” American LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting
1

1

Pueblo of Laguna v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 133, 135-36 (2004)). Plaintiff’s motion is not premised

2

on any showing that relevant and existing evidence is in danger of being destroyed, but on general

3

request to preserve any potential evidence. Plaintiff has not shown that a preservation order is needed

4

due to any actual risk that specific evidence will be lost or destroyed during the pendency of this

5

action. Generalized, unsupported concerns simply to not suffice. American LegalNet, Inc., 673

6

F.Supp.2d at 1072. Furthermore, Defendants have a duty to preserve evidence. “A party’s destruction

7

of evidence qualifies as willful spoliation if the party has some notice that the documents were

8

potentially relevant to the litigation before they were destroyed.” Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., 464

9

F.3d 951, 959 (9th Cir. 2006). Discovery in this action is ongoing and the discovery deadline is

10

currently set for October 8, 2018. To the extent there is a dispute over whether certain evidence exists

11

and/or should be disclosed, the proper procedural mechanism is to file a motion to compel.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to preserve and produce evidence is denied.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

16

September 20, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2